IE8 Will Be Standards-Compliant By Default

A number of readers wrote in to make sure we know about Microsoft's change of heart regarding IE8. The new version of the dominant browser will render in full standards mode by default. Developers wishing to use quirks mode for IE6- and IE7-compatible rendering will have to opt in explicitly. We've previously discussed IE8's render mode a few times. Perhaps Opera's complaint to the EU or the EU's record antitrust fine had something to do with Redmond's about-face.

The only catch

[Anonymous Coward]

is that new definition of 'full standards mode' means 'requires Silverlight'.

Re:Or perhaps...

[ScentCone]

No, I think that the people from Opera just went to Seattle and burned the houses of the project managers [latimes.com].

Re:Hmmmm

[WK2]

Firefox is an absolute memory whore.

OMG WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO YOUR BROWSER!?!? And how? Whatever it is, I don't think Firefox actually wants your memory that badly.

On the other hand, perhaps you meant, "memory hog."

It's a trap!

[tobiasly]

It's a trap! First Microsoft lures us all into using interoperable web standards, and then... then.... shit, I can't figure out how they can use this for evil. Gimme a sec...

Re:Or perhaps...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod Parent Flamebait

Re:I don't care about IE at all

[mike_sucks]

No no, it's a hat made /out of/ zealots.

Comfortable and quite a nice looking number, too.

/Mike

Re:Huge assumption in the title

[ryszard99]

+5 smackdown

Re:Acid3

[robably]

So what browser do the Acid Test people use to check their tests? Why don't they just release it and then everyone could use that. Problem solved.

Re:Huge assumption in the title

[DanielJosphXhan]

So what you're saying is that by IE15 we should see a fully standard-compliant browser?

Microsoft has the be the only organisation on earth *slower* that the W3C. I mean, it's not exactly a moving target.

Re:Huge assumption in the title

[cp.tar]

So what you're saying is that by IE15 we should see a fully standard-compliant browser?

If by "standards compliant" you mean "compliant to the standards up to year 2004", then yes, that sounds about right.

Re:Huge assumption in the title

[Random BedHead Ed]

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119

For those too busy to consult RFC 2119 in detail, it basically states the following:

• Should should mean "should."
• Must must mean "must."
• Must not must not mean anything other than "must not."
• Required is required if you want to express the idea of a requirement.
• Shall shall mean "shall."
• Shall not shall not be construed as indicating that something "shall." (In fact it shall be the opposite.)
• Should should usually mean "should," but not always.
• Should not should not mean anything other than the opposite of "should," but also not always.
• Recommend is recommended for use in RFCs as well, but may be optional.